- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:18:01 -0400
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I made some of changes Christine suggested, and some related changes.
> Christine Golbreich wrote:
> > Below some comments on the Roadmap section of the Document Overview
> >
> > 1. Put the Roadmap at top, as the first section of the Document Overview
> >
>
> I do not think I agree with this. The 'logical' reading of this document
> is to get some sort of a very high level picture of OWL in general,
> before diving into the details on how and what is documented and where
> (which is the roadmap).
>
> I agree that the purpose is to provide a "high level view". However, as we
> mention everywhere that " The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall
> state of OWL 2, and should be read **before** other OWL 2 documents", I
> assume we hope it to be read the first document read :-).
> In my view, the Overview is like a Preamble of the "Book". The RoadMap at
> its Top would be viewed like a Table of Contents of the "Book".
> It would be easier for a reader to have an easy acces to the Table of
> Contents at the beginning rather to look for it and find it at the end.
>
> If it's not the Roadmap, anyway something is needed at the top of the Doc
> Overview to play that role.
I'm leaning towards agreeing with Christine on this, that the Roadmap
should go first, as a sort of master Table Of Contents for the whole
set. But I'll wait until we talk about it at the telecon before making
this change.
> > 2. Roadmap
> >
> > a) Add some global text for users below the Roadmap picture , something
> > like
> > The OWL 2 Document Overview describes should be read before other OWL 2
> > documents.
> > The reading order of the other documents depends on the audience.
> > Advanced readers who are interested in technical aspects, may read the
> > documents 2 to 5 that form the technical core of OWL 2 and 6 which
> > describes the Profiles. Readers familiar with OWL 1 who want an overview
> > of the main new features that have been added to OWL 2 and of their
> > rationale, may read document 9. Readers who look for a guide introducing
> > OWL 2 and explaining how to use it may read document 8. Ontology
> > developers who need a language synopsis may use document 10. Developers
> > interested in conformance test cases may refer to document 10, users
> > interested in Manchester syntax should go to document 12 (to be
> > completed for 11 -13)
My hope is that the document descriptions in the table are good enough
that people can figure out which they need to read, and in which order.
> AFAIK, we did discuss having such a text added to each document's
> introduction instead of putting the current table everywhere, but I am
> not sure we already have such a text drafted. But I presume the same
> text could be reused here
>
> What I understood, perhaps wrongly, is that instead of putting the Table of
> the Roadmap everywhere we'll have some text everywhere pointing to the
> Overview, which is now the case: all documents in their abstract have the
> sentence "The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2,
> and should be read before other OWL 2 documents." which precisely points to
> the Doc Overview.
> Thus normally a reader should go first to the Overview, and might be happy
> to find at it's top the " Table " to know where to jump.
>
> The little texte I suggested above was rather to comment the Table. I'm not
> sure such a text is very useful at the beginning of each doc. Its pointer t=
> o
> the Overview seems enough IMO.
>
>
>
> > b) The link XML Serialization is broken
Fixed.
> > c) I'd rather link to the wiki documents to prevent misundertanding or
> > confusions at the announcement of its publication w.r.t. LC comments
I agree. I added an EdNote explaining this.
> > d) I suggest to remove all specific mentions at users documents like
> > "being revised /being completed" for the users documents, because they
> > may be shortly obsolete, and replace it by a single warning at top,
> > mentionning that all documents are under revision.
Done.
> > e) For QRG I'd suggest to replace the sentence : "provides an overview
> > of the various OWL 2 features in general" by something closer to the QRG
> > abstract, e.g. like "provide a quick synopsis to the OWL 2 language".
Done -- I came up with new text to describe QRG. I also changed the
descriptions of XML and DRE, trying to be more helpful to people who
don't already know what they are.
- Sandro
> > Given the schedule I don't know how to process.
> > I 'm available to make the changes on the wiki of those that don't raise
> > objection.
> >
> Sandro has offered to make the changes he proposed himself. I would
> prefer to let him do these, otherwise we get into some wiki-fight where
> everybody looses...
>
> OK.
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -
>
>
> Ivan
>
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > 2009/3/10 Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org <mailto:sandro@w3.org<sandro@w3.org=
> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think we assigned reviewers, and I we're scheduled to make a
> > publication decision in about 36 hours; so I did a review, and here i=
> t
> > is.
> >
> > With editorship of this document a little vague, and Ian unavailable
> > this week, I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Here's my suggestion:
> if
> > you agree with one of my comments, reply with a "+1" to it. If you
> > don't, reply with a "-1" and/or explanation. Any of my proposed
> changes
> > which get at least one +1 and no -1's, I'll try to implement. (My
> > timeline for this will depend on when/how folks reply.) (In some
> cases,
> > I make disjunctive proposals, and you should clarify which option
> you're
> > approving or objecting to.)
> >
> > My review is on this version:
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview?oldid=3D18827
> >
> > A few of these (like what documents to link to, and fixing the
> abstract)
> > are show-stoppers; IMO they really have to be addressed before
> > publication. I'd like to see them all addressed.
> >
> > -- Sandro
> >
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > Document Overview
> >
> > * The abstract needs to be handled as a special case; right now the
> > first paragraph gets weird, talking about itself in the third
> > person.
> >
> > * I think the title should be
> >
> > OWL 2 Web Ontology Language
> > Part 1: Document Overview
> >
> > SECTION 1
> >
> > * "Ontologies are formalised" -> "Ontologies are formalized"
> >
> > "W3C uses U.S. English (e.g., "standardise" should read
> > "standardize" and "behaviour" should read "behavior")." --
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Spelling
> >
> > * OWL 1 was developed by the Web Ontology WG, not the OWL WG.
> >
> > SECTION 2 (Overview)
> >
> > * "At the top are various concrete syntaxes that can be used to"
> > ^ discussed in section 2.2
> >
> > * "At the bottom are the two semantic specifications"
> > ^ discussion in
> > seciton 2.3
> >
> > (without these forward references, the diagram is unexpectedly
> > baffling, I think)
> >
> > * I'd make the diagram bigger -- maybe 700px across instead of 600,
> > but maybe that's just me. Also a little color might be nice.
> > Ivan, will the source work in InkScape?
> >
> > SECTION 2.1 Ontologies
> >
> > * (here and elsewhere) "OWL 2 Specification" is a really bad referenc=
> e
> > name for Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. I
> > don't know what we should call it, but calling part 2 of the OWL 2
> > specification "specification" is ... not okay. (Yes, I know we've
> > done this in our other publication so far; I didn't want to make a
> > stink then because we'd argued too much about naming, but now lookin=
> g
> > at it again from the perspective of someone coming fresh to our
> > documents, ... "No!")
> >
> > There's an argument that we should always refer to other parts of th=
> e
> > OWL 2 spec using the approved shortname, in which case this referenc=
> e
> > would be "owl2-syntax", but ... that's a pretty confusing name, too,
> > especially in a sentence explaining how it's not about syntax.
> >
> > I think my favorite would be "OWL2 Structures". Maybe we should
> > change the shortname from owl2-syntax to owl2-structures, too.
> >
> > SECTION 2.2 Syntax
> >
> > * "serialisation" (UK spelling)
> >
> > * Maybe do a table of the syntaxes and their properties?
> > (Name, Specified In, Required?, Description)
> >
> > SECTION 2.3 Semantics
> >
> > * "OWL 2 Ontologies that are interpreted using the RDF-Based Semantic=
> s
> > are called 'OWL 2 Full' ontologies. " and the last paragraph
> > paragraph...
> >
> > I think OWL Full is/should be the name of a syntactic subset --
> > specifically the trivial subset that is the full language. The
> > choice of semantics is orthogonal.
> >
> > * On the editor's note -- we don't need to characterize it here; it's
> > too technical for this.
> >
> > * So, the last paragraph needs lots of work, since it conflates
> > syntactic subset (OWL DL) with choice of semantics (Direct
> > Semantics).
> >
> > * I think it would help to have a table like this, to help make the
> > point about the tradeoffs between the semantics, and their
> > relationship with syntactic subsets...
> > http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-matrix
> > but it still needs some work, and maybe can never be accurate
> > enough to be more helpful than harmful.
> >
> > SECTION 3: Profiles
> >
> > * I'd prefer this numbered as 2.4. I think it's more at the same
> level
> > as 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and 2/4/5. ACTUALLY, I think I'd put this
> BEFORE
> > Semantics, so we can do the table of Profiles-vs-Semantics. The
> > profiles can be done without talking about the two semantics.
> >
> > * I'd like to include a Venn Diagram, perhaps a version of
> > http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profiles-doc
> > without the roll-overs, and in black-and-white (or make the other
> > diagram be in color).
> >
> > * I'd like to make it more clear that the profiles are syntactic
> > subsets -- and that there may be benefits for sticking within those
> > subsets -- and nothing magical than that.
> >
> > * In particular, DL is a syntactic subset of OWL 2, even though it's
> > not described in Profiles. That should be shown in this section.
> >
> > SECTION 4: Differences between OWL 2 and the previous version of OWL
> >
> > * Very clunky title... How about "What's New In OWL 2"? (it even
> > rhymes)
> >
> > * Maybe subsections, "What's the Same" and "What's New", which seems
> to
> > be the text here, if divided into groups the same size as the
> > subsections in 2.
> >
> > * The references here (and in some other places) are not preceeded by
> > a space, giving us stuff like "Syntax[OWL 1", which seems
> > typographically wrong to me...
> >
> > * The XML syntax for OWL 1 seems oddly described, and the link seems
> > wrong.
> >
> > * Obviously the editor's note "Editor's Note: Is this correct? Or are
> > there corner cases to be mentioned?" needs to be cleaned up before
> > publication! I don't know, either. If it were left to me, I'd have
> > to leave it in phrased as "still under investigation" or something.
> >
> > * "OWL 1 had only one profile" ... I think of DL and Full as a
> > profiles.
> >
> > * In what sense was OWL Lite "not retained"? You can still use it.
> > Maybe better to say to say no new specification for it has been
> > provided in OWL2, but it is still usable as a subset of OWL2.
> >
> > * Last paragraph (about punning) should probably have a link to more
> > details, since it's a deeply confusing concept.
> >
> > SECTION 5 Documentation Roadmap
> >
> > * Let's just call it "Document" Roadmap (not "Documentation") unless
> > we're calling this the "Documentation Overview" (which isn't what we
> > decided.)
> >
> > * Ummmm. What versions are we linking to here, for this release of
> > Doc-Overview? The Wiki? The 2008-12-02 versions? What about
> > Profiles, which is seriously out of date in all versions, and DRE
> > which hasn't yet been published? I GUESS we link to the last TR,
> > except in the case of DRE, in which case we say it's to be published
> > soon, and for Profiles include text in the roadmap about it being ou=
> t
> > of date.
> >
> > * There's been some talk of changing the order. The obvious things
> are
> > to put the non-core specs togther, before or after the user docs. I
> > happen to like it as it is, since I think "Profiles" is more core
> than
> > the other non-core specs, but I wouldn't object to a change. We
> > should probably have a WG resolution on this; I expect RPI and
> > Manchester to have strong conflicting views on this.
> >
> > SECTION 6 References
> >
> > * I think these should be organized, somehow; right now I guess they
> > are in the order the references are made? It ends up looking
> > pretty random.
> >
> > How about alphabetic within groups, where the
> > groups are something like:
> > OWL 1
> > OWL 2
> > Other (maybe divided into W3C and Non-W3C)
> >
> > * Same question as in Roadmap about which versions we refer to here.
> >
> > SECTION 7 Notes
> >
> > * I don't really think an overview like this should have footnotes.
> > They don't seem overview-y.
> >
> > * For Note 1 (from 2.2), this seems too detailed and novel for the
> > overview. And it kind of seems to undermine conformance -- is
> > RDF/XML required or not? Let's just drop this note, and address
> > this somewhere else if necessary.
> >
> > * For Note 2 (from 2.3), this could be inlined in 2.3, or dropped.
> >
> > * For Note 3 (from Profiles), that could go into parentheses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christine
>
> --
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
> --=20
> Christine
> --=20
> Christine
>
> --000e0cd29cb07e30800464c8d977
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <br><br>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/3/10 Ivan Herman <<a href=3D"mailto:ivan=
> @w3.org">ivan@w3.org</a>></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>Christine Golbreich wrote:<br>> Below som=
> e comments on the Roadmap section of the Document Overview<br>><br>> =
> 1. Put the Roadmap at top, as the first section of the Document Overview<br=
> >
> ></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>I do not think I agree with this. The 'l=
> ogical' reading of this document<br>is to get some sort of a very high =
> level picture of OWL in general,<br>before diving into the details on how a=
> nd what is documented and where<br>
> (which is the roadmap).<br>=A0<br><font color=3D"#3333ff">I agree that the =
> purpose is to provide a "high level view". However, as=A0 we ment=
> ion everywhere that " The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overal=
> l state of OWL 2, and should be read **before** other OWL 2 documents"=
> , I assume we hope it to be read the first document read :-). <br>
> In my view, the Overview is like a Preamble of the "Book". The Ro=
> adMap at its Top would be=A0 viewed like a Table of Contents of the "B=
> ook".<br>It would be easier for a reader to have an easy acces to the =
> Table of Contents at the beginning rather to look for it and find it at the=
> end.<br>
> =A0<br>If it's not the Roadmap, anyway something is needed at the top o=
> f the Doc Overview to play that role.<br>=A0</font></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><font color=3D"#3366ff"></font>=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">> 2.=A0 Roadmap<br>><br>> a) Add some g=
> lobal text for users below the Roadmap picture , something<br>> like<br>=
> > The OWL 2 Document Overview describes should be read before other OWL =
> 2<br>
> > documents.<br>> The reading order of the other documents depends on=
> the audience.<br>> Advanced readers who are interested in technical asp=
> ects, may read the<br>> documents 2 to 5 that form the technical core of=
> OWL 2 and 6 which<br>
> > describes the Profiles. Readers familiar with OWL 1 who want an overvi=
> ew<br>> of the main new features that have been added to OWL 2 and of th=
> eir<br>> rationale, may read document 9. Readers who look for a guide in=
> troducing<br>
> > OWL 2 and explaining how to use it may read document 8. Ontology<br>&g=
> t; developers who need a=A0 language synopsis may use document 10. Develope=
> rs<br>> interested in conformance test cases may refer to document 10, u=
> sers<br>
> > interested in Manchester syntax should go to document 12=A0 (to be<br>=
> > completed for 11 -13)<br>></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>AFAIK, we did discuss having such a text add=
> ed to each document's<br>introduction instead of putting the current ta=
> ble everywhere, but I am<br>not sure we already have such a text drafted. B=
> ut I presume the same<br>
> text could be reused here<br>=A0<br><font color=3D"#3333ff">What I understo=
> od, perhaps wrongly, is that instead of putting the Table of the Roadmap ev=
> erywhere we'll=A0 have some text everywhere pointing to the Overview, w=
> hich is now the case: all documents in their abstract have the sentence &qu=
> ot;The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and sh=
> ould be read before other OWL 2 documents." which precisely points to =
> the Doc Overview.<br>
> Thus normally a reader should go first to the Overview, and might be happy =
> to find at it's top the " Table " to know where to jump.<br>=
> =A0<br></font><font color=3D"#3333ff">The little texte I suggested above wa=
> s rather to comment the Table. I'm not sure such a text is very useful =
> at the beginning of each doc. Its pointer to the Overview seems enough IMO.=
> </font><br>
> =A0<br>=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>> b) The link XML Serialization=A0 is bro=
> ken<br>><br>> c) I'd rather link to the wiki documents to prevent=
> misundertanding or<br>> confusions at the announcement of its publicati=
> on w.r.t. LC comments<br>
> ><br>> d) I suggest to remove all specific mentions at users document=
> s like<br>> "being revised /being completed" for the users doc=
> uments, because they<br>> may be shortly obsolete, and replace it by a s=
> ingle warning at top,<br>
> > mentionning that all documents are under revision.<br>><br>> e) =
> For QRG I'd suggest to replace the sentence : "provides an overvie=
> w<br>> of the various OWL 2 features in general" by something close=
> r to the QRG<br>
> > abstract, e.g. like "provide a quick synopsis to the OWL 2 langua=
> ge".<br>><br>> Given the schedule I don't know how to proces=
> s.<br>> I 'm available to make the changes on the wiki of those that=
> don't raise<br>
> > objection.<br>></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">Sandro has offered to make the changes he propos=
> ed himself. I would<br>prefer to let him do these, otherwise we get into so=
> me wiki-fight where<br>everybody looses...<br>=A0<br><font color=3D"#3333ff=
> ">OK.</font></div>
>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><font color=3D"#3333ff"><br></font>- Afficher le=
> texte des messages pr=E9c=E9dents -<br>=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>Ivan</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>> Christine<br>><br>><br>> 2009/=
> 3/10 Sandro Hawke <<a href=3D"mailto:sandro@w3.org">sandro@w3.org</a> &l=
> t;<a href=3D"mailto:sandro@w3.org">mailto:sandro@w3.org</a>>></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">><br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 I don't thi=
> nk we assigned reviewers, and I we're scheduled to make a<br>>=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0 publication decision in about 36 hours; so I did a review, and here =
> it<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 is.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 With editorship of this document a little vague, a=
> nd Ian unavailable<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 this week, I'm not quite sure ho=
> w to proceed.=A0 Here's my suggestion: if<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 you agree=
> with one of my comments, reply with a "+1" to it.=A0 If you<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0 don't, reply with a "-1" and/or explanation.=
> =A0 Any of my proposed changes<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 which get at least one +=
> 1 and no -1's, I'll try to implement.=A0 (My<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 ti=
> meline for this will depend on when/how folks reply.)=A0 (In some cases,<br=
> >
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0 I make disjunctive proposals, and you should clarify which=
> option you're<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 approving or objecting to.)<br>><=
> br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 My review is on this version:<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a hr=
> ef=3D"http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview?oldid=3D18827">http=
> ://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Document_Overview?oldid=3D18827</a><br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 A few of these (like what documents to link to, an=
> d fixing the abstract)<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 are show-stoppers; IMO they real=
> ly have to be addressed before<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 publication.=A0=A0 I'=
> ;d like to see them all addressed.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 -- Sandro<br>><br>>=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>><br>>=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 Document Overview<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * The abstract need=
> s to be handled as a special case; right now the<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 first paragraph gets weird, talking about itself in the=
> third<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 person.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I think=
> the title should be<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 OWL 2 Web Onto=
> logy Language<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Part 1: Document Overview<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 1<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * "Onto=
> logies are formalised" -> "Ontologies are formalized"<br>=
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 "W3C uses U.S. English (e.g., "standa=
> rdise" should read<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 "standardize" and "behaviour" shoul=
> d read "behavior")."=A0 --<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a href=3D=
> "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Spelling">http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manu=
> al/#Spelling</a><br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * OWL 1 was developed by the Web Ontology WG, not =
> the OWL WG.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 2 (Overview)<br>><br>>=
> ;=A0=A0=A0=A0 * "At the top are various concrete syntaxes that can be =
> used to"<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 ^ discussed in section 2.2<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * "At the bottom are the two semantic specifi=
> cations"<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ^ discussion in<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> seciton 2.3<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (without these forward references, the diagr=
> am is unexpectedly<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 baffling, I think)<br>><br>=
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I'd make the diagram bigger -- maybe 700px across in=
> stead of 600,<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 but maybe that's just me.=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0 Also a little color might be nice.<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ivan, will the source work in InkScape?<br>><br>>=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 2.1 Ontologies<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * (here and=
> elsewhere) "OWL 2 Specification" is a really bad reference<br>&g=
> t;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 name for Structural Specification and Functional-Style Sy=
> ntax.=A0 I<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 don't know what we should call it, but calling part=
> 2 of the OWL 2<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 specification "specification&qu=
> ot; is ... not okay.=A0 (Yes, I know we've<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 done =
> this in our other publication so far; I didn't want to make a<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 stink then because we'd argued too much about namin=
> g, but now looking<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 at it again from the perspective =
> of someone coming fresh to our<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 documents, ...=A0 &qu=
> ot;No!")<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 There's an argument that w=
> e should always refer to other parts of the<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 OWL 2 spec using the approved shortname, in which case =
> this reference<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 would be "owl2-syntax", but=
> ... that's a pretty confusing name, too,<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 especi=
> ally in a sentence explaining how it's not about syntax.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 I think my favorite would be "OWL2 Structu=
> res".=A0 Maybe we should<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 change the shortname f=
> rom owl2-syntax to owl2-structures, too.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTIO=
> N 2.2 Syntax<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * "serialisation" (UK sp=
> elling)<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Maybe do a table of the syntaxes and their prope=
> rties?<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 (Name, Specified In, Required?, Description)<=
> br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 2.3 Semantics<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0 * "OWL 2 Ontologies that are interpreted using the RDF-Based Seman=
> tics<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 are called 'OWL 2 Full' ontologies. " and =
> the last paragraph<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 paragraph...<br>><br>>=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 I think OWL Full is/should be the name of a syntactic subset -=
> -<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 specifically the trivial subset that is the full l=
> anguage.=A0 The<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 choice of semantics is orthogonal.<br>><br>>=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 * On the editor's note -- we don't need to characterize i=
> t here; it's<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 too technical for this.<br>><br>=
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0 * So, the last paragraph needs lots of work, since it conf=
> lates<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 syntactic subset (OWL DL) with choice of semantics (Dir=
> ect<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Semantics).<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I thin=
> k it would help to have a table like this, to help make the<br>>=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 point about the tradeoffs between the semantics, and their<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 relationship with syntactic subsets...<br>>=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a href=3D"http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-matrix">=
> http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-matrix</a><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 but =
> it still needs some work, and maybe can never be accurate<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 enough to be more helpful than harmful.<br>><br>>=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 3: Profiles<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I'd pref=
> er this numbered as 2.4.=A0 I think it's more at the same level<br>>=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 as 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and 2/4/5.=A0 ACTUALLY, I think I'=
> d put this BEFORE<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Semantics, so we can do the table of Profiles-vs-Semant=
> ics.=A0 The<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 profiles can be done without talking abo=
> ut the two semantics.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I'd like to include=
> a Venn Diagram, perhaps a version of<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 <a href=3D"http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profile=
> s-doc">http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/owl2-profiles-doc</a><br>>=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 without the roll-overs, and in black-and-white (or make the other=
> <br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 diagram be in color).<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * I'd like to make it more clear that the prof=
> iles are syntactic<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 subsets -- and that there may be =
> benefits for sticking within those<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 subsets -- and no=
> thing magical than that.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * In particular, DL is a syntactic subset of OWL 2=
> , even though it's<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 not described in Profiles.=A0=
> =A0 That should be shown in this section.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTI=
> ON 4: Differences between OWL 2 and the previous version of OWL<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Very clunky title...=A0 How about "What'=
> ;s New In OWL 2"?=A0 (it even<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 rhymes)<br>><b=
> r>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Maybe subsections, "What's the Same" and=
> "What's New", which seems to<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 be the text here, if divided into groups the same size =
> as the<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 subsections in 2.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> * The references here (and in some other places) are not preceeded by<br>&=
> gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 a space, giving us stuff like "Syntax[OWL 1", =
> which seems<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 typographically wrong to me...<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0 * The XML syntax for OWL 1 seems oddly described, and the link seems<br=
> >>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 wrong.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Obviously the edi=
> tor's note "Editor's Note: Is this correct? Or are<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 there corner cases to be mentioned?"=A0 needs to b=
> e cleaned up before<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 publication!=A0 I don't know=
> , either.=A0 If it were left to me, I'd have<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 to =
> leave it in phrased as "still under investigation" or something.<=
> br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * "OWL 1 had only one profile" ...=A0 I =
> think of DL and Full as a<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 profiles.<br>><br>>=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0 * In what sense was OWL Lite "not retained"?=A0 You =
> can still use it.<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Maybe better to say to say no new =
> specification for it has been<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 provided in OWL2, but it is still usable as a subset of=
> OWL2.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Last paragraph (about punning) should =
> probably have a link to more<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 details, since it's=
> a deeply confusing concept.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 5 Documentation Roadmap<br>><br>>=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 * Let's just call it "Document" Roadmap (not "=
> Documentation") unless<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 we're calling this t=
> he "Documentation Overview" (which isn't what we<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 decided.)<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Ummmm.=A0 What =
> versions are we linking to here, for this release of<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> Doc-Overview?=A0 The Wiki?=A0 The 2008-12-02 versions?=A0 What about<br>&g=
> t;=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Profiles, which is seriously out of date in all versions,=
> and DRE<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 which hasn't yet been published?=A0 I GUESS we link=
> to the last TR,<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 except in the case of DRE, in which=
> case we say it's to be published<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 soon, and for =
> Profiles include text in the roadmap about it being out<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 of date.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * There's been=
> some talk of changing the order.=A0 The obvious things are<br>>=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 to put the non-core specs togther, before or after the user docs.=
> =A0 I<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 happen to like it as it is, since I think &quo=
> t;Profiles" is more core than<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 the other non-core specs, but I wouldn't object to =
> a change.=A0 We<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 should probably have a WG resolution=
> on this; I expect RPI and<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Manchester to have strong=
> conflicting views on this.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 6 References<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 *=
> I think these should be organized, somehow; right now I guess they<br>>=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 are in the order the references are made?=A0=A0 It ends up =
> looking<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 pretty random.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 How about alphabetic within groups, where the<b=
> r>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 groups are something like:<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 OWL 1<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 OWL 2<br>>=A0=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Other=A0=A0 (maybe divided into W3C and Non-W3C)<br>>=
> <br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0 * Same question as in Roadmap about which versions we refe=
> r to here.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 SECTION 7 Notes<br>><br>>=A0=
> =A0=A0=A0 * I don't really think an overview like this should have foot=
> notes.<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 They don't seem overview-y.<br>
> ><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * For Note 1 (from 2.2), this seems too detailed a=
> nd novel for the<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 overview.=A0 And it kind of seems t=
> o undermine conformance -- is<br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 RDF/XML required or no=
> t?=A0 Let's just drop this note, and address<br>
> >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 this somewhere else if necessary.<br>><br>>=A0=A0=
> =A0=A0 * For Note 2 (from 2.3), this could be inlined in 2.3, or dropped.<b=
> r>><br>>=A0=A0=A0=A0 * For Note 3 (from Profiles), that could go into=
> parentheses.<br>><br>
> ><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> Christine</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>--</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead<br>H=
> ome: <a href=3D"http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/">http://www.w3.org/People/Iv=
> an/</a><br>mobile: =A0+31-641044153=A0<br>PGP Key: <a href=3D"http://www.iv=
> an-herman.net/pgpkey.html">http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html</a><br>
> FOAF: <a href=3D"http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf">http://www.ivan-herma=
> n.net/foaf.rdf</a></div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">=A0</div>
> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>-- <br>Christine</div>-- <br>Christine<br>
>
> --000e0cd29cb07e30800464c8d977--
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 15:18:12 UTC